CBC Should Investigate Terrible Gloria Macarenko “Interview” For Breach of Standards

It’s embarrassing to see what the CBC has become.

Readers of this blog have become well aware of my own criticism of what I see as the declining standard of journalism and impartiality that has beset the CBC for some time now… reflecting more and more an activist, far left radical point of view.

I have even repeatedly referred to the CBC The National news program as “the unofficial voice of the NDP”.

And now, a Jewish media monitoring organization, Honest Reporting Canada, has levelled even more serious charges against the CBC in the case of an “interview” done by Gloria Macarenko on the CBC Vancouver radio program On the Coast.

On April 17, the program featured a 12-minute interview Macarenko did with Yipeng Ge, whom Honest Reporting has described as a “leading anti-Israel propagandist.”

Now, I see nothing wrong with featuring such an interview IF the normal standards of journalism apply: not letting the guest just rant, but challenging their statements, assertions and calling out or at least questioning apparent lies or misstatements.

But HRC contends … and I agree with them … that did not happen at all in what I would call a terrible interview done by Macarenko.

”During the interview, Ge accused Israel of executing Gaza doctors, stated at least eight times that Jerusalem was committing genocide, and claimed Israel was intentionally starving Gaza. He was not challenged a single time by his host,” HRC stated.

”In November, Ge was suspended by the University of Ottawa for posting on social media ‘from the river to the sea’, a statement that is widely seen as calling for the destruction of Israel and, as such, can be reasonably viewed as calling for genocide against Jews,” HRC contended.

The Jewish media monitoring group called Ge, an Ottawa doctor who briefly volunteered in Gaza in February, a “leading advocate for the destruction of Israel”.

Yet … and what made this broadcast most deplorable as HRC has complained .., is that for 12 minutes Ge was allowed “to spew venomous anti-Israel disinformation with no pushback at all.”

I agree.

I listened to the “interview” Sunday and must say I believe it failed miserably, in terms of journalism and just plain fairness.

Macarenko just let Ge rant completely unchallenged, make all kinds of outrageous accusations … several not borne out by any proven official findings … without a single question, critical analysis or even a raised doubt of anything he said.

HRC concluded Ge “made accusations so extreme that listeners could be forgiven for thinking they were listening to official Hamas propaganda, and not a publicly funded broadcaster.”

I believe Macarenko should be ashamed of herself: her 12 minute say-anything-you-want offering to this anti-Israel hate monger on the CBC’s public airwaves was not only a journalistic disgrace, for not challenging ANYTHING he spewed, but in my view is exactly the kind of unchecked hate speech that has fostered the growth of anti-Semitism in Canada.

(The entire broadcast is available on the Honest Reporting Canada website: I urge anyone really interested in seeing how journalism has descended into just one-sided propaganda at the CBC to give it a listen.)

Does the CBC not have ANY standards of fairness or impartiality anymore?

This broadcast MUST be investigated for breach of CBC broadcast standards; any unproven statements, charges and accusations that were spewed out by Ge over the public airwaves MUST be delineated and identified openly by the CBC; and Macarenko’s failure to do her job as a real journalist in this puffball piece of anti-Israel hate propaganda, MUST be repudiated by the public broadcaster.

Harv Oberfeld

(Follow @harveyoberfeld on “X”’for FREE Alerts to new postings on this Blog.)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to CBC Should Investigate Terrible Gloria Macarenko “Interview” For Breach of Standards

  1. D. M. Johnston says:

    I do not listen to the CBc, rather i ignore it like the plague. Wasn’t always so.

    In the 80’s and 90’s on Saturdays I listened to several CBC shows, including Double Exposure and Steam Powered Radio. The last time I tunes into the CBC was in 2020 and I just about upchucked, it was terrible; it was a national embarrassment and disgrace.

    They seem to be daring Pierre Pollievre to cut funding if he is elected.

    More and more the perceived establishment is becoming antisemitic and in fact it is now “chique”to be antisemitic in BC and Canada as the NDP definitely are and the Liberals so under the influence of terror organizations abroad are also becoming antisemitic. Even the the national Green party has shown its cards.

    (Just a note: A pro Palestinian demonstration closed down the Delta Superport for 3 hours with all participants covering their faces to prevent identification. This was a terror attack and no one did a thing.

    This is the crowd the CBC is catering too.

    The CBC is no longer a national radio and TV organization, it has become the “voice of terror”, a politcal propaganda machine that is out of control.

    It seems both the NDP and the Liberals accept this malignant organization and I am sure plenty of “Odor of Canada” (no spelling mistake here) medals will be presented by the Quislings in both the NDP and the Liberal politcal parties.

    (Response: I get it: much of the media (including me) have tended over the years to be generally personally left leaning. But when it came to doing my job, I generally got along with those in Opposition (regardless of political stripe) and was disliked by those in power (again regardless of political stripe) because I always asked tougher questions of those with power and with billions of taxpayers’ dollars at their disposal. And I would challenge “bull” proffered by any side. I almost felt sick listening to Macarenko’s puffball “interview” … a disgraceful performance, in my view, unworthy of any exposure on any serious broadcast, public or private. And if CBC brass let it pass without comment or action, they disgrace themselves and the entire public broadcast corporation. h.o.)

  2. Ijustdontknowanymore says:

    My god just when I thought I’ve heard it all about CBC and MSM, then this deplorable cowardly interviewing by a main journalist and host on CBC. I’ve heard all now. It can’t get worse, because this the worse. That so shameful. Does she feel any shame at all I wonder. I’m glad I didn’t see that, because I would feel embarrased to even watch that sad excuse for journalism. But I haven’t listened to or watched CBC for years, thank god.

    (Response: Macarenko is an experienced and knowledgeable broadcaster who should have known better. In this interview, she came across to me as more of an enabler of hate, bias and misinformation than a journalist. Where were her ethics as a reporter, who is supposed to challenge controversial or outrageous claims and assertions by a clearly biased guest? Where were her producers? This MUST be investigated by the CBC brass, who should demand answers… and an apology from Macarenko and her producers! h.o.)

  3. Marge says:

    I am wondering if the CBC didn’t hand this one to Ms. Macarenko knowing that she normally does fluff pieces on Vancouver. Maybe they thought if they got flack over it, they could always say that she doesn’t usually handle the tough interviews. But this would mean that CBC had some brains running it, but I have never seen that, so I am assuming that my assertion about the above is probably wrong and that Ms. Macarenko just does what the higher ups tell her to do to get that huge pay check. And did anyone notice that True dough is giving more money ($42 million in above to what else they get) to the CBC with the new budget? They won’t have to cutback on staff and can go after the Conservatives when the call comes for the election! Aren’t we so lucky!

    (Response: The CBC has become so far left activist, so biased journalistically in my view, it’s as if they know that if Poilievre wins the next election, many of them will be gone. And although I am still a supporter of a national public broadcaster serving communities from coast to coast to coast, what the current CBC is churning out has to be addressed. h.o. )

  4. RIsaak says:

    CBC does rhyme with Tyee, they both have much in common except Tyee is not govt. funded. The messaging is similar.

    The CBC of the pre satellite era had relevance when remote geography was considered. I doubt they come close to audience percentage today compared to 40 yrs. ago.

    Nice top up from Trudeau so they can have executive bonus’s again?

    The editorial bias constantly emanating from CBC is a fact no “news organization” could be proud of, I still bet HNIC gets 10X the views of their news.

    CBC, Canada’s blockbuster video, sponsored by the Liberals & NDP, paid for with your grandkids taxes……

    (Response: Private publications have the right to support a particular point of view or agenda …as long as they don’t contravene Canadian laws in doing so. However, a public broadcaster, funded with taxpayers’ dollars and supposedly with a special nation-building mission role is NOT Fox News, MSNBC, Al Jazeera or RT Television and has a greater responsibility to express the disparate views of Canadians … not just push those their biased producers/reporters support. h.o)

    • D. M. Johnston says:

      I have been banned commenting on the Tyee, for the comment ………. wait for it ………. not for the faint of heart ………… get your kids out of the room: “The bicycle lobby has done far more damage to long term transit planning than good.”

      It is all right to be antisemitic, it is all right for HAMAS controlled protesters shut down businesses, but holy of holies do not say any thing negative about the cycle lobby.

  5. Chuck B says:

    I don’t watch or listen to CBC, once in a while read stuff on their website. The Liberals just gave the CBC more money. If they are to exist (CBC) I would hope a Pierre Poilievre government would stop the handouts and turn them tin a PBS type operation, where they have to get money from the public and corporations. Macarenko should be ashamed of herself.

    (Response: Wouldn’t it be interesting if a Parliamentary committee obtained/published the detailed ratings of the CBC … especially The National… over the past 20 years! I’d be shocked if they haven’t dropped, dropped, dropped as their advocacy-style propaganda efforts have gone up, up, up. h.o)

  6. Rainclouds says:

    The Sooner CBC becomes like PBS the happier I will be. The current CBC iteration is so far off the rails. Balance has been cast aside, instead pandering to extreme left agenda’s.
    Didn’t used to be the case. Radio and the National were my go to in decades past. Not now. Irrelevant mostly.

    Culling the Corpse by 50 % and resetting the mandate to ensure impartiality cant come quickly enough.

    (Response: I’m leery about politicians getting involved in supervising editorial content on any news operation, but the CBC has gone so far off-kilter in covering the broad range of Canadian public opinion on so many issues …it’s now almost like the far left, socialist revolutionaries and anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic propaganda machine has taken over the public broadcaster … and CBC management have done nothing to restore fairness and integrity to the operation …so maybe it will take Parliamentarians under a new government to restore integrity and journalistic impartiality. Ugh! h.o)

  7. Edgar says:

    NPR has just gone through upheaval when Uri Berliner, a veteran at the public radio institution, suggested, in an article in the Free Press that NPR had lost its way when it started telling listeners how to think. Uri Berliner was subsequently suspended for 5 days and then decided to resign. He had been with NPR for 25 years.

    One of his arguments was NPR no longer reflected the diversity of opinion in America. An argument that can easily made about the CBC. Too bad there is no one with the courage to come forward at the CBC.

    A quote from Uri Berliner’s article (link below)
    “By 2023, the picture was completely different: only 11 percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative, 21 percent as middle of the road, and 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. We weren’t just losing conservatives; we were also losing moderates and traditional liberals.

    An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don’t have an audience that reflects America. ”

    Link https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust

    (Response: ANY real journalist knows that both (or several) sides of issues should be canvassed/explained …and then let the reader, listener or viewer decide who is right or wrong. I have complained about this lack of diversity in CBC reporting for some time ..especially on what used to be the respected flagship show The National ..on many issues (womens’ rights, gay issues, right to life or First Nations’ demands/claims and controversial international disputes etc.) Ironically, I personally agree/support many of the liberal or progressive views covered on several of these matters, BUT that doesn’t mean conservative or right wing opinions/positions should not be covered … in other words silenced! I just don’t see that any more on CBC: it’s all one-sided, left wing or progressive advocacy…and I believe that’s been a journalistic failing at the CBC for some time now, but the Macarenko “interview” on such a controversial issue as the Israel/Hamas war went beyond the pale … no journalistic questioning or challenges at all…. just 12-minutes of rabid anti-Israel propaganda. Disgraceful! It cannot go unexposed or unchallenged. h.o.)

  8. Not Sure says:

    I started a lengthy response and realized that there was too much for you to go through so I am going to limit it to the Macarenko interview and ignore the CBC and media bias altogether Maybe later on. And to be clear, I am definitely NOT SURE so as a former journalist enlighten me.

    I listened to the interview and was surprised that Yipeng Ge was as soft spoken as he was after your description. I wasn’t overwhelmed by Macarenko in this particular case, but here is where I am having difficulty

    I hate cherry picking so I decided to listen to another interview by Macarenko and searched for an interview dealing with Israel. I found one where she interviewed a person from a Jewish advocacy group talking about the teacher from Langara who was let go for her comments about the Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

    Two interviews out of likely thousands are no indication but to me Macarenko sounds like someone who gives her guest a chance to tell their story. Her questions are leading not challenging. What do you think should be done? How has this story impacted you etc. The only question that I thought was even remotely challenging to the Jewish advocate was what would you say to people who see this as a free speech issue.” The guy gave a excellent response. That answer amplified the points he was making.

    To the interview with Ge. I thought it was a no win. He was there to describe what he saw in Gaza. Several times he referred to it as genocide. If Macarenko had challenged him, wouldn’t that just be giving him an opportunity to amplify his argument. Let’s say she goes “excuse me what would you say to people who disagree that genocide is occurring”. And he gives a laundry list of points including the World Court and the charges of genocide brought by South Africa. Is it up to Macarenko to then argue the opposing view. Not only is she then taking a side and likely accused of bias by Pro-Palestinians but worse, she probably loses that argument.and Ge walks away even happier.

    Thoughts?

    (Response: A key requirement of being a real journalist, in my view, is the realization that we are NOT Hansard: it’s not the role of the media (not even during a political debate) to just grant access/time for people to say anything they want and propagandize for those they support or denigrate those they oppose…without the interviewer/moderator challenging/questioning outrageous claims/statements. Wouldn’t Trudeau/Eby/Falcon/Poilievre love that!! The journalist’s role … and responsibility …is to canvas a wide range of points of view on issues (especially controversial or political ones) …and to question/challenge both their guests’ ideas/positions and even what they offer as “facts” (including alternative facts! 🙂 ). The goal is to help the reader, listener or viewer then reach their own opinion …but not just let those who are given air time slander, lie and ignore truth ..even if they do so in a soft, pleasant voice. Now in the case of the Macarenko/Ge disgraceful piece, I would just ask anyone who listens to it (still available on the Honest Reporting Canada website) to substitute the word “Israelis” for, say, blacks, Chinese or Arabs. I don’t think almost anyone believes ANY guest interviewed on CBC would go unchallenged if he or she said repeatedly, for example, that black militants somewhere deliberately shot innocent, civilian doctors in the head in summary executions … without citing any official report that found/concluded that. It would be terrible journalism!!! The whole 12-minute interview, in my opinion, was full of outrageous, unproven allegations and one-sided anti-Israel propaganda…. none of it undergoing the scrutiny or questioning that a real journalist should be expected to apply. And when that happens on a supposedly serious, credible public broadcaster, it should never just be allowed to pass … or go unchallenged! h.o)

  9. Not Sure says:

    Thank you for your response. And I don’t disagree with anything you are saying about a journalist’s job.

    Let me move to bias for a moment. Pretty much all of us are biased.

    When I hear the outrage about the CBC coming from you and others here, I wonder if I am watching the same program. Is that because my bias blinds me to what you are seeing or is it because your bias amplifies every little thing you find offensive? Guaranteed it is both.

    I searched and found an online site mediabias/factcheck.com that rates all media outlets on bias. CTV relatively unbiased, CBC centre left bias, Global and Mail centre right bias, CNN centre left bias. They were all rated highly for factual information. Fox on the other hand was rated lower for factual information with a more extreme centre right bias.

    I am fully aware that the people running that site may be biased themselves but those rankings of the media I listed seem pretty accurate. So I looked up Honest Reporting. Rated highly for factual content but considered a centre right bias for its support of Netanyahu and biased as well for its singular purpose of searching for media bias against Israel. Does Honest Reporting criticize stories/interviews with unfair coverage of Palestinians for example?

    And to be clear I am not criticizing Honest Reporting for what they are doing. I am glad they exist to balance any perceived media bias but we also have to consider its bias if we are going to scrutinize the bias of other media.

    Back to the interview. Journalists have an obligation to challenge statements made by people they interview. That’s a given. But is there a line? I think Macarenko’s biggest mistake was booking the guy at all. Ge was already well known not just for Pro-Palestinian comments but anti-Israel comments as well. But he had gone to Gaza so I suppose what he saw might be of interest. What could possibly go wrong?

    Anyway, he is booked. Now what. I am going to focus on his use of genocide because I don’t know enough about the killings of doctors but I think the same idea applies. He describes what he saw in Gaza and calls it genocide. Macarenko lets it go. But let’s assume it’s someone like you doing the interview. If Ge gets challenged, he would be more than happy to give an explanation. Cites the five definitions of genocide and points out the four that South Africa has used at the World Court. Now what?

    Is that enough pushback or does the journalist now take a side and argue with him and be accused of bias from Palestinian supporters? If not, will Honest Reporting or you be any happier with that simple challenge? And if they do argue, I don’t care how smart you are or Macarenko is or somebody from Honest Reporting is, if Ge is halfway prepared and I imagine he would be more than that, he wins that argument. And I am not saying he is right. I am saying he is happy to walk away with the opportunity to have magnified his position on genocide. Any listener who doesn’t already have an opinion is now more likely to consider the possibility.

    That’s why I am asking about a line. Maybe Macarenko made the right call. You are upset that it didn’t go the way you wanted but perhaps it would have been worse. How do you see the interview going had you been the host.

    If anything, Macarenko could bring on an unbiased expert guest on genocide who could explain why some claim genocide and others don’t. Or is even that a risk?

    (Response: My main issue in this blog piece was not so much about Ge: in my opinion, he is just a biased, one-sided anti-Israel propagandist, not really worthy of much attention by those who sincerely seek a way to peace/agreement between Palestinians and Israelis. My greater disappointment was with Macarenko, who in my view, failed miserably in ding her job as a journalist. Some people may accept the idea of just giving unfettered air time to individuals on controversial issues, but if the issue involved was not Israel, I doubt those same people would stand by their position if the guest was, say, a white supremacist or anti-Asian immigration activist or opponent of welcoming so many Muslims to Canada. And no way would ANY of them get the HUGE CBC air time the anti-Israel bigots and pro-Palestinian lobby get day after day, hour after hour on the so one-sided disgraced and disgraceful CBC! h.o)

  10. Ijustdontknowanymore says:

    Harvey, could a non confidence vote be some how called, and could it also be a good thing. I guess its up to the NDP pulling out of the coalition with Trudeau. Is that how it works. Unless Trudeaus own ousted him. Then to top everything off it would be so grand to see Freeland get the boot. She’s such a bad Finance Minister.
    But the Liberal house probably won’t because they remind me of just a group of obeying robots. And Singh is way to self serving to himself to do that break away and see a non confidence vote go through. I could see Singhs party getting a boost in the polls for having the courage to split from Trudeau because Trudeau is causing so much harm to both party’s because of his absolute stupidity and political recklessness. I think many people are seeing Singh and The NDP in a really bad light for hanging in with Trudeau. I usually don’t care for earlier elections but I think lots more people are desperate to see the end of a seriously messed up PM like Trudeau. He keeps falling in the polls and doesn’t get it. Is it arrogance, pride political brain death or what. But whatevers going on in that thick skull it’s hurting Canadians and the country it so many bad ways that It shouldn’t continue, and Singh needs to man up and do whats right for Canadians and not for himself anymore because his NDP will most likely go down the toilet with Trudeau. In shame and disgrace. I mean how crazy would that be. Talk, about political suicide and Party destruction. A real extinction event. And good, they would be deserving of it.

    (Response: It could be Jagmeet Singh has more to consider than just what’s best for Canada: apparently he personally won’t qualify for his Parliamentary pension til Feb, 2025. This from the Toronto Sun a few weeks ago: “It also adds up over time – an MP taking their pension at 55 after six years of service would collect around $900,000 by the time they reached age 85. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, who signed the coalition deal with Justin Trudeau, gets vested in his pension by February 2025, six years after he won a by-election.” You can read that article by Brian Lilley here: https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/canada-soon-to-be-governed-by-the-pension-coalition-in-ottawa#:~:text=It%20also%20adds%20up%20over,he%20won%20a%20by%2Delection. So Singh has thousands of reasons to prop up Trudeau/Liberals! h/o)

    • Ijustdontknowanymore says:

      Thanks Harvey, I had a read on that. I see more of it now. The selfishness of politicians like Singh, and others, instead of doing the right stuff and sacrificing a bit for Canadians interests is really shameful. They really do disgust me. More reason to see them get a standing ovation when they destroy themselves. Can’t wait to see it. I will hope.

Comments are closed.